Pirates of Silicon Valley

Notes

we are currently experiencing a temporary postponement of the law, in the context of Web 2.0

NOTER_PAGE: (1 . 0.44086021505376344)

some of the practices and technologies of Web 2.0 have been met with scorn and contempt because they instigate so– called piracy

NOTER_PAGE: (2 . 0.25144747725392885)

the diﬀerences between the two are not as clear–cut as they might seem

NOTER_PAGE: (2 . 0.3763440860215054)

under the cover of a strong brand name and a catchy corporate motto, piracy is excused

NOTER_PAGE: (2 . 0.41687344913151364)

NOTER_PAGE: (2 . 0.4772539288668321)

depend on content created externally from Internet companies themselves

NOTER_PAGE: (2 . 0.544251447477254)

NOTER_PAGE: (2 . 0.6013234077750207)

value creation in Web 2.0 takes place through a process of dispossession

NOTER_PAGE: (2 . 0.8031430934656741)

Enclosure

In disregard of copyright and privacy rights, rather than with the help of copyright, Web companies have been given free rein to extract and dispossess

NOTER_PAGE: (2 . 0.8461538461538461)

the forceful upholding of property rights in relation to informational goods is not the only reason behind the commons being threatened

NOTER_PAGE: (3 . 0.09594706368899918)

the cardinal matter is who is allowed the rights to his or her products of cultural creativity and intellectual labour, and under what circumstances these rights are upheld

NOTER_PAGE: (3 . 0.1935483870967742)

so–called ‘users’ are increasingly surveyed in their media use (motivated by the need to uphold copyright), while being at the same time legally dispossessed

NOTER_PAGE: (3 . 0.2878411910669975)

On the one hand intellectual property rights are strengthened and reinforced, while on the other, they are annulled [1]. This seems to be not two diﬀering or conﬂicting trends, but rather the two sides of the same coin

NOTER_PAGE: (3 . 0.3631100082712986)

absence of copyrights has not been interpreted as a possible problem — rather it has been univocally understood as something almost inherently positive or progressive

NOTER_PAGE: (3 . 0.739454094292804)

We contend that these should not be seen as legitimate market transactions, but should — at least in some instances — be considered and debated as state–sponsored piracy

NOTER_PAGE: (4 . 0.13399503722084366)

in none of these cases are copyright and technical measures of control (i.e., DRM) the gravest threat to the cultural commons. On the contrary

NOTER_PAGE: (4 . 0.3052109181141439)

the shifting environment of Web 2.0 is at the moment in a state of exception, a temporary suspension of the rule of law in order to bring forward the rule of the new

NOTER_PAGE: (4 . 0.608767576509512)

the state of exception is transformed from being a marginalised feature of political life to a central one

NOTER_PAGE: (5 . 0.22167080231596362)

The deprivation of established rights for some for the beneﬁt of strong economic actors, and the policing of the same rights in other contexts, can be adequately captured through the state of exception as an analytical lens.

NOTER_PAGE: (5 . 0.5847808105872622)

accumulation by dispossession is the accumulation by capital through other means than those of the market, whether “through force, fraud, oppression”

NOTER_PAGE: (7 . 0.07775020678246485)

NOTER_PAGE: (7 . 0.3424317617866005)

Subjects were set free from the oppressive structure of feudalism, and gained the freedom to sell their labour on the market. But at the same time this meant that they found themselves in a new relationship of exploitation in the factories

NOTER_PAGE: (7 . 0.5062034739454094)

our participation plays an essential role in the accumulation of capital

NOTER_PAGE: (7 . 0.8660049627791563)

NOTER_PAGE: (8 . 0.07775020678246485)

Human beings make things in order to survive (food, clothing, etc.) but also for the sheer joy of making things — and making them well (Sennett, 2008). Such an enterprise — of doing things for their own sake — does not necessarily coincide with the interests of Capital, whose main driving force is accumulation

NOTER_PAGE: (8 . 0.511166253101737)

perpetual incorporation of new realms of human productivity into capitalism

NOTER_PAGE: (8 . 0.717948717948718)

threshold between inside and outside, between capitalism and its Other

NOTER_PAGE: (8 . 0.7551695616211745)

there is only a very ﬁne line separating the respectability of YouTube from the pariahs of the digital economy: pirates, ﬁle–sharers and p2p networks.

NOTER_PAGE: (9 . 0.4152191894127378)

Although YouTube has installed ﬁlters and practices in order to remove copyrighted material from the site, a quick search on almost any artist reveals the obvious truth that YouTube is only propelled forward by ignoring regulations and avoiding technical protection.

NOTER_PAGE: (9 . 0.6435070306038048)

This remains true today, e.g. wrt children's privacy

NOTER_PAGE: (9 . 0.8511166253101737)

NOTER_PAGE: (10 . 0.3052109181141439)

NOTER_PAGE: (10 . 0.674937965260546)

uses the collective eﬀorts of Web users to produce relevant interpretations of the Web’s content

NOTER_PAGE: (10 . 0.8569065343258891)

Google’s claim for this practice is that it is a win–win situation. Through exploiting the collective work of users they are able to serve these same users.

NOTER_PAGE: (11 . 0.7038875103391232)

Google could claim that users, by using their services and accepting the terms of use, are entering a legitimate relationship of exchange.

NOTER_PAGE: (12 . 0.22746071133167908)

Google goes beyond the intent stated in the terms of service

NOTER_PAGE: (12 . 0.44995864350703063)

I don't really see how

accumulation by dispossession of one of the fundamental characteristics of being human: the ability to communicate

NOTER_PAGE: (12 . 0.6774193548387096)

NOTER_PAGE: (12 . 0.8792390405293631)

NOTER_PAGE: (13 . 0.24400330851943755)

do not directly generate value for Facebook since the company does not sell it and the people that uploaded it — at least theoretically “control how it is shared”

NOTER_PAGE: (13 . 0.564929693961952)

This is no longer true in the age of big data

NOTER_PAGE: (14 . 0.8602150537634409)

NOTER_PAGE: (15 . 0.11910669975186104)

Web 2.0 as an economic model for cultural production has, however, called for a distribution of rights that goes against established interpretations of the law

NOTER_PAGE: (15 . 0.608767576509512)

policy discussions are all in favour of a strong protection of intellectual property, but view this only from the perspective of the cultural industries.

NOTER_PAGE: (16 . 0.11497105045492143)

In the trial against TPB the defendants claimed that their site was protected under the ‘safe harbours’ of electronic commerce, since what they did was only providing a service in line with a search company. The claim of TPB was, of course, that they are just as legitimate a business as Google. The court, however, found that they were not. The perhaps more correct conclusion, in light of existing laws and regulations, is that both models are equally illegitimate.

NOTER_PAGE: (16 . 0.4532671629445823)

TPB’s problem was perhaps not that they made too much money, but that they made too little

NOTER_PAGE: (16 . 0.6418527708850289)

TPB was handled as question of property and ownership by the cultural industries, whereas in the case of other Web 2.0 services it is always framed as an issue of the user’s privacy. It is almost never acknowledged that users should have some right to ownership

NOTER_PAGE: (16 . 0.8842018196856907)

what is not mentioned in these discussions: the protection of users’ rights to their intellectual property

NOTER_PAGE: (17 . 0.5318444995864351)

the privacy frame also implies that the means of regulation are not those of state intervention or regulation by law but a question of self–regulation.

NOTER_PAGE: (18 . 0.130686517783292)

to frame problems as concerns of privacy lets governments withdraw under the guise of doing something

NOTER_PAGE: (18 . 0.8122415219189413)

state of exception is best understood in conjunction with the intensiﬁcation of the reach and power of the law in other areas

NOTER_PAGE: (19 . 0.18196856906534326)

rather than investigating Web 2.0 services’ role in copyright infringement the goal is to discuss the “limitations on the application of those remedies to online service providers”

NOTER_PAGE: (19 . 0.597187758478081)

In cases where such ‘leaks’ are direct eﬀects of the company’s own operations (i.e., ‘crowdsourcing’) the directive had nothing to say

NOTER_PAGE: (20 . 0.07775020678246485)

acknowledges the economic importance of what the report calls user–generated content, and also the potentially problematic question of property rights, “though the large majority of users will be satisﬁed with credits and exposure of their content”

NOTER_PAGE: (20 . 0.37799834574028124)

a diﬀerence between professionally produced material and content produced by amateurs is stipulated. This lets the paper handle user–generated content as a matter of free speech (‘the right to remix’) and professional material as a question of ownership

NOTER_PAGE: (20 . 0.6608767576509512)

policy and regulation will be adapted to and modeled upon the economic practices already in place, developed by the industry in the unregulated period

NOTER_PAGE: (21 . 0.15467328370554176)

services that transform user labour into economic value are given a status of working in between the categories of law — user rights, intellectual property rights, etc. — in eﬀect a generalized exception for Web 2.0 services that have proven themselves ﬁnancially viable.

NOTER_PAGE: (21 . 0.6501240694789082)

a condition for many of the Web 2.0 services is a weakened conception of intellectual property rights, weakened notions of authorship and a disregard for the rights to the fruits of intellectual or immaterial labour. Our argument has been that it is questionable whether this really leads — in the case under inspection here — to a strengthening of the commons and a truly egalitarian and participatory production of culture

NOTER_PAGE: (22 . 0.08023159636062861)

Notes

we are currently experiencing a temporary postponement of the law, in the context of Web 2.0

some of the practices and technologies of Web 2.0 have been met with scorn and contempt because they instigate so– called piracy

the diﬀerences between the two are not as clear–cut as they might seem

under the cover of a strong brand name and a catchy corporate motto, piracy is excused

social power that comes with the promise of economic growth

depend on content created externally from Internet companies themselves

work is being appropriated in the name of collective intelligence and social networking

value creation in Web 2.0 takes place through a process of dispossession

In disregard of copyright and privacy rights, rather than with the help of copyright, Web companies have been given free rein to extract and dispossess

the forceful upholding of property rights in relation to informational goods is not the only reason behind the commons being threatened

the cardinal matter is who is allowed the rights to his or her products of cultural creativity and intellectual labour, and under what circumstances these rights are upheld

so–called ‘users’ are increasingly surveyed in their media use (motivated by the need to uphold copyright), while being at the same time legally dispossessed

On the one hand intellectual property rights are strengthened and reinforced, while on the other, they are annulled [1]. This seems to be not two diﬀering or conﬂicting trends, but rather the two sides of the same coin

absence of copyrights has not been interpreted as a possible problem — rather it has been univocally understood as something almost inherently positive or progressive

We contend that these should not be seen as legitimate market transactions, but should — at least in some instances — be considered and debated as state–sponsored piracy

in none of these cases are copyright and technical measures of control (i.e., DRM) the gravest threat to the cultural commons. On the contrary

the shifting environment of Web 2.0 is at the moment in a state of exception, a temporary suspension of the rule of law in order to bring forward the rule of the new

the state of exception is transformed from being a marginalised feature of political life to a central one

The deprivation of established rights for some for the beneﬁt of strong economic actors, and the policing of the same rights in other contexts, can be adequately captured through the state of exception as an analytical lens.

accumulation by dispossession is the accumulation by capital through other means than those of the market, whether “through force, fraud, oppression”

the instrumentalized social production of Web 2.0 does not so much dispossess us of the means of production as such, but our sense of ownership of ourselves and the autonomy of our imagination.

Subjects were set free from the oppressive structure of feudalism, and gained the freedom to sell their labour on the market. But at the same time this meant that they found themselves in a new relationship of exploitation in the factories

our participation plays an essential role in the accumulation of capital

perpetual incorporation of new realms of human productivity into capitalism

threshold between inside and outside, between capitalism and its Other

there is only a very ﬁne line separating the respectability of YouTube from the pariahs of the digital economy: pirates, ﬁle–sharers and p2p networks.

Although YouTube has installed ﬁlters and practices in order to remove copyrighted material from the site, a quick search on almost any artist reveals the obvious truth that YouTube is only propelled forward by ignoring regulations and avoiding technical protection.

secure a share of advertising revenues that these economies generate

having to accept the role of the Other to the “collective intelligence” and “social networks” of the new economy.

AdSense, is an attempt to simulate human understanding through the processing of the textual output of humans

uses the collective eﬀorts of Web users to produce relevant interpretations of the Web’s content

Google’s claim for this practice is that it is a win–win situation. Through exploiting the collective work of users they are able to serve these same users.

Google could claim that users, by using their services and accepting the terms of use, are entering a legitimate relationship of exchange.

Google goes beyond the intent stated in the terms of service

accumulation by dispossession of one of the fundamental characteristics of being human: the ability to communicate

What Facebook essentially does is to digitize already existing relationships in the social realm

Social networking sites in general, and Facebook par excellence, are hence “proﬁling machines”

do not directly generate value for Facebook since the company does not sell it and the people that uploaded it — at least theoretically “control how it is shared”

What is dispossessed in social networking sites is then not only personal information and intellectual property rights but also sociability as such.

In social networking sites, what is taking place is an inclusion into capitalist relations of the very quality of social relations as such — the sense of community and social trust. Plus — not to forget — also the means of staging, upholding and making community and sociability

Web 2.0 as an economic model for cultural production has, however, called for a distribution of rights that goes against established interpretations of the law

policy discussions are all in favour of a strong protection of intellectual property, but view this only from the perspective of the cultural industries.

TPB’s problem was perhaps not that they made too much money, but that they made too little

TPB was handled as question of property and ownership by the cultural industries, whereas in the case of other Web 2.0 services it is always framed as an issue of the user’s privacy. It is almost never acknowledged that users should have some right to ownership

what is not mentioned in these discussions: the protection of users’ rights to their intellectual property

the privacy frame also implies that the means of regulation are not those of state intervention or regulation by law but a question of self–regulation.

to frame problems as concerns of privacy lets governments withdraw under the guise of doing something

state of exception is best understood in conjunction with the intensiﬁcation of the reach and power of the law in other areas

rather than investigating Web 2.0 services’ role in copyright infringement the goal is to discuss the “limitations on the application of those remedies to online service providers”

In cases where such ‘leaks’ are direct eﬀects of the company’s own operations (i.e., ‘crowdsourcing’) the directive had nothing to say

acknowledges the economic importance of what the report calls user–generated content, and also the potentially problematic question of property rights, “though the large majority of users will be satisﬁed with credits and exposure of their content”

a diﬀerence between professionally produced material and content produced by amateurs is stipulated. This lets the paper handle user–generated content as a matter of free speech (‘the right to remix’) and professional material as a question of ownership

policy and regulation will be adapted to and modeled upon the economic practices already in place, developed by the industry in the unregulated period

services that transform user labour into economic value are given a status of working in between the categories of law — user rights, intellectual property rights, etc. — in eﬀect a generalized exception for Web 2.0 services that have proven themselves ﬁnancially viable.